It's bad. But as I've said before, the left-wing response to being elected (twice) was "fuck this, I'm moving to Canada," the right-wing response to Obama has been, "buy guns and challenge his legitimacy!" I could undestand the anger at Clinton, as he was not elected with a majority of the votes in '92, and one could argue more people voted for the "conservative" candidates in Bush and Perot, however that card doesn't play anymore.

Well, think about it: a common thread among the right is "Might Makes Right." They're into smiting enemies and kicking ass (except that most of them just talk about it instead of actually fighting in wars, but I digress...) and being tough.

What do you really think their response would be? Go to Canada? WHat? That's like the France of America! You've gotta be f'ing kidding me. Run away?! Pshaw!

They see their only logical response to rescue America from itself, and it doesn't help that their media handlers are telling them that it's not only the right thing to do, but completely necessary.

Go 'Mer'ca!

_________________"The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other... involves orcs." - Kung Fu Monkey

Sorry - I should not rely on such hyperbole. Those guys are just entertainers, right?

Alan Keyes wrote:

"Obama is a radical communist and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it is coming true. He is going to destroy this country and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."

I cannot imagine why anyone would resort to violence in light of being told things like that.

_________________"The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other... involves orcs." - Kung Fu Monkey

Sorry - I should not rely on such hyperbole. Those guys are just entertainers, right?

Alan Keyes wrote:

"Obama is a radical communist and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it is coming true. He is going to destroy this country and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."

I cannot imagine why anyone would resort to violence in light of being told things like that.

Why would you consider that a call to violence? Why can't he be talking about organizing to run candidates and get the word out about positions he and others disagree with and try to get people to vote Obama and other politicians out of office?

While this type of report is nothing new, the smearing of a generalization of people is.

In previous reports about violence and left wing extremists groups (that Tim and UnP pretend don't exist), the reports were very specific about the groups that could resort to violence. Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, etc.

But this report smears whole groups of people by including them in with racists and hate groups that they have nothing to do with.

Quote:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Don't agree with more power to the federal government? You are an extremist prone to violence. Don't support amnesty for illegal immigrants? You are an extremist prone to violence. Don't support abortion? You are an extremist prone to violence.

Lots of generalizations and "maybes" in there so as to not need facts to support the accusations and still be able to smear people.

This is an attempt to marginalize those who disagree with Obama and the Democrats by lumping them in with vile groups such as racists. The politicization of homeland security to smear political opponents. A new low.

Quote:

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.”

Who knew, all of the union members lamenting the loss of manufacturing jobs are actually right wing extremists. All of those anti-semitic racists, who hated Bush and his support of Israel, are actually right wing extremists. Who knew.

This is an attempt to marginalize those who disagree with Obama and the Democrats by lumping them in with vile groups such as racists. The politicization of homeland security to smear political opponents. A new low.

they actually lump themselves in there on their own

there are plenty of anti-abortionists that draw the line at picketing, and plenty more that are okay with attacking clinics and doctors. when they come out as one unit and both of these things happen, how are we supposed to respond? when i was a kid, there was a guy from our church who was in jail for attacking an abortion clinic. no one else in church would have gone that far, but no one spoke out against it either. yes, that is one instance, but how often do you find pro-lifers and christian groups speaking out against pro-life extremists? if these types of people are hurting your cause, maybe try distancing yourself from them, instead of making them leaders of your movement, i.e. pat robertson, sean hannity, rush limbaugh. we'll stop lumping you in with vile groups when you stop following vile people.

The politicization of homeland security to smear political opponents. A new low.

not that new:

Quote:

According to The Washington Post, Cheney stated, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice." Cheney continued, "if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit [by terrorists] again."

_________________i'll never be a bowie, i'll never be an eno. i'll only ever be a gary numan.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Don't agree with more power to the federal government? You are an extremist prone to violence. Don't support amnesty for illegal immigrants? You are an extremist prone to violence. Don't support abortion? You are an extremist prone to violence.

Yeah...except that's not what the quote says. You flipped it around, either to create a strawman to argue against, or because you don't exactly understand the subtleties of if/then propositions. I'm not sure which.

Assuming the latter, I'll try and clarify.

The quoted passage is addressing characteristics of a set of people; in this case, rightwing extremists. It simply says "If you select someone from the set of people who are rightwing extremists, then they'll be either hate-oriented or anti-government".

That's different than the meaning you've assigned the quote, which, as I said, flips it around. You contend the passage is claiming "If you're anti-government, then you're a rightwing extremist." It's not.

There's probably some Venn diagrams and maybe a book on logic that explains all this better than me, so maybe that's something to look into. The larger point though is the quoted passage says what it says, not what you say it says.

_________________Gob: "My God. What is this feeling?"
Michael: "You know, the feeling that you're feeling is just what many of us call ... a 'feeling.'
Gob: "It's not like envy, or even hungry."
Michael: "Could it be love?"
Gob: "I know what an erection feels like, Michael. No, it's the opposite -- it's like my heart is getting hard."

That no one bats an eye at DHS monitoring "anti-government" activity is scarier that "right-wing extremism"

Brought to you by the same people who make you take your shoes off to get on a plane.

Well, when there's a history of "anti-government activity" which becomes "people died as a result" it's a little more understandable.

and ...

Quote:

The politicization of homeland security to smear political opponents. A new low.

L-O-fucking-L.

Adding religious objectors to the war, leftist protesters and old ladies to the list of enemy combatants, anyone? Let's see: who did that again? And then there's that whole US Attorney General thing. I forget who was in charge then too though. hmm...

_________________"The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other... involves orcs." - Kung Fu Monkey

The quoted passage is addressing characteristics of a set of people; in this case, rightwing extremists. It simply says "If you select someone from the set of people who are rightwing extremists, then they'll be either hate-oriented or anti-government".

That's different than the meaning you've assigned the quote, which, as I said, flips it around. You contend the passage is claiming "If you're anti-government, then you're a rightwing extremist." It's not.

Your description of what I was saying in not accurate, but the word choice could have been better.

Don't agree with more power to the federal government? You COULD BE an extremist prone to violence. Don't support amnesty for illegal immigrants? You COULD BE an extremist prone to violence. Don't support abortion? You COULD an extremist prone to violence.

I forgot to add in that they targeted military veterans as well.

Which still makes the point that they are generalizing about entire swaths of people that is outrageous and makes the report essentially useless other than the imply to people that if they stick their neck out for views Obama and his administration disagree with, you could be a target.

There is also leftist extremist violence but the DHS reports about that don't smear entire loose affiliations of people, they target ELF, ALF, etc. You could create generalizations about the views of many on the left that would assume guilt by association too and would be equally outrageous.

The politicization of homeland security to smear political opponents. A new low.

not that new:

Quote:

According to The Washington Post, Cheney stated, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice." Cheney continued, "if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit [by terrorists] again."

I don't think they are the same Justin. First, it is one thing to say, "we think the other campaign is weak on security and that could increase the chance of a terrorist attack if he/she wins." I think an equivalent to the DHS politicization would be if Cheney had said, "if you vote for the other party, you could want us to be hit by terrorists again." And no one said that.

This is an attempt to marginalize those who disagree with Obama and the Democrats by lumping them in with vile groups such as racists. The politicization of homeland security to smear political opponents. A new low.

they actually lump themselves in there on their own

there are plenty of anti-abortionists that draw the line at picketing, and plenty more that are okay with attacking clinics and doctors. when they come out as one unit and both of these things happen, how are we supposed to respond? when i was a kid, there was a guy from our church who was in jail for attacking an abortion clinic. no one else in church would have gone that far, but no one spoke out against it either. yes, that is one instance, but how often do you find pro-lifers and christian groups speaking out against pro-life extremists? if these types of people are hurting your cause, maybe try distancing yourself from them, instead of making them leaders of your movement, i.e. pat robertson, sean hannity, rush limbaugh. we'll stop lumping you in with vile groups when you stop following vile people.

I don't know if you are referring to me or the collective "you," but I am pro-choice.

But, if you (collective you) are anti-abortion and some nutjob who is also anti-abortion, commits an act of violence, which you are wholly against, you still have to answer for that and speak out against it at every instance?

I seem to remember talking heads on TV saying Obama needed to do that in the campaign for some of the people linked to his past.

I hear people I know say that about the Council on American-Islamic Relations, that they have no leg to stand on in criticizing anything in the US if CAIR won't condemn every suicide bomber in the middle east.

If I am understanding you, are those your views as well, Sam? That law abiding citizens have to answer for anyone remotely loosely affiliated with their views who do something they disagree with?

To your other point, I don't have a leader. I research positions and make up my own mind. Don't listen to Hannity or Limbaugh, unless I am in someone elses' car who has it on.

Jawbreaker wrote:

That no one bats an eye at DHS monitoring "anti-government" activity is scarier that "right-wing extremism"

According to The Washington Post, Cheney stated, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice." Cheney continued, "if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit [by terrorists] again."

I don't think they are the same Justin. First, it is one thing to say, "we think the other campaign is weak on security and that could increase the chance of a terrorist attack if he/she wins." I think an equivalent to the DHS politicization would be if Cheney had said, "if you vote for the other party, you could want us to be hit by terrorists again." And no one said that.

Are you actually trying to claim that the Republicans never once equated supporting the Democrats to supporting the enemy?

Or perhaps that the DHS never made political targets of those on the left, such as... oh I don't know, reading the emails of peace activists and adding them to the terrorist suspect lists? Are you sure about that?

_________________"The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other... involves orcs." - Kung Fu Monkey

I don't know if you are referring to me or the collective "you," but I am pro-choice.

But, if you (collective you) are anti-abortion and some nutjob who is also anti-abortion, commits an act of violence, which you are wholly against, you still have to answer for that and speak out against it at every instance?

I seem to remember talking heads on TV saying Obama needed to do that in the campaign for some of the people linked to his past.

I hear people I know say that about the Council on American-Islamic Relations, that they have no leg to stand on in criticizing anything in the US if CAIR won't condemn every suicide bomber in the middle east.

If I am understanding you, are those your views as well, Sam? That law abiding citizens have to answer for anyone remotely loosely affiliated with their views who do something they disagree with?

To your other point, I don't have a leader. I research positions and make up my own mind. Don't listen to Hannity or Limbaugh, unless I am in someone elses' car who has it on.

i hate:

babies, jobs, all black people, all chinese people, some japanese people, indians (east and west indies), single moms, all mexicans, journalists, jokes, fun, having a good time, hanging out online, downloading pdf files, etc.

i was using the abortion issue as an equivalent to the race issue. not all pro-lifers bomb clinics, not all tea partyers are racists. if you want to bring up mr. hussein obama's ties to "terrorists" again, please give me a break. i thought we were past this??? i realize now that he tricked us and is a muslim. shouldn't you be out protesting that black guy right now?